Subject: RE: [6lowpan] friday's agenda

From: "Shah, Rahul C" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:52:28 -0800

Carsten/Geoff,

>From the perspective of a new member to the group, I was wondering why
the "Gateway architecture between 6LoWPAN and IPv6 networks" is not
being given priority in the current rechartering... I would think this
is important since no 6LoWPAN network is going to be a standalone
network.

Additionally, I would suggest that the group also consider a gateway
architecture between 6LoWPAN and an IPv4 network, due to the
preponderance of IPv4 in the short term. I am not suggesting that any
flavor of IPv4 be used inside the 6LoWPAN, but it would be useful to
consider connecting to such a network. 

What does the group have to say?

Thanks,
Rahul Shah.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:56 PM
To: Schumacher Christian Peter Pii
Cc: Carsten Bormann; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] friday's agenda

On Mar 19 2006, at 17:01, Christian Schumacher wrote:
> Carsten and Geoff, what is the status of the official agenda for  
> 6lowpan WG meeting on friday?
Well, I think that status is called "very very late" in English...

An initial draft of the agenda is at

	http://6lowpan.tzi.org/6lowpan_20at_20IETF_2065

Please also follow the "recharter" link and send comments on the  
draft charter to this list.
There are names of possible contributors in the proposed charter --  
these are not meant to be exclusive, and we would like to hear which  
ones of the potential charter items each of you wants to work on.

Apart from the Friday WG meeting, we plan to have a 6lowpan dinner on  
Thursday (after the plenary) -- please RSVP to Christian if you want  
to participate.

Gruesse, Carsten

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:40:58 -0600

> is important since no 6LoWPAN network is going to be a standalone

When this question came up in the past, my recollection of the  
consensus was that no work was necessary as this gateway is doing the  
same thing as any other IPv6 router in the IPv6 architecture.

Do you have requirements on this gateway that go beyond an IPv6 router?

> consider connecting to such a network.

This is a good point; from my personal point of view, this is just  
another case of an IPv4/IPv6 transition scenario, and the issues are  
not different from any other of these.  Again, I'd like to hear about  
specific requirements of 6lowpans.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "IGARASHI Yuichi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:31:11 +0900

To the group from a new member

The follow are only my personal opinion:
I also agree with Rahul's opinion. I think it would be useful to consider
connecting to external network for applications, and that gateway
architecture is important subject. 
But, I think that issues inside 6LoWPAN should be solved first. For example,
compression header format of TCP/ICMPv6, scalability of 6LoWPAN, and
correspondence to IPv6 ready logo, etc. Because most important purpose of
6LoWPAN is to transmit IPv6 packets efficiently over IEEE 802.15.4, I think.

I would like to hear about perspective for the future (order of the subject
which should be solved) in WG.

Thanks,
Yuichi IGARASHI

-----Original Message-----
From: Shah, Rahul C [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:52 AM
To: Carsten Bormann; Schumacher Christian Peter Pii
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [6lowpan] friday's agenda

Carsten/Geoff,

Thanks,
Rahul Shah.

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:56 PM
To: Schumacher Christian Peter Pii
Cc: Carsten Bormann; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [6lowpan] friday's agenda

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:43:10 -0600

I am so confusing of why TCP over 6LoWPAN is on the
table of discussion. So far, I can't see any requirement in
terms of TCP usage over 6LoWPAN. It seems very hard
to be implemented on the 6LoWPAN from the engineering
perspective. So, we need to clarify TCP requirement before
jumping into the TCP discussion. To me I am a bit negative.

Thanks, 

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.